Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-05-Speech-3-413"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010905.14.3-413"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank all those Members who took part in the debates on my report in committee, and in particular the shadow rapporteurs of the various political groups, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, Mr Bowe, Mrs Schörling and Mr Sjöstedt. We have before us the proposal for a directive amending for the 24th time the 1976 dangerous substances directive, which proposes restrictions on the marketing and use of pentabromodiphenyl ether.
What exactly is at issue here? Pentabromodiphenyl ether is a flame retardant, 95% of which is used in the manufacture of flexible polyurethane foam for furniture and in particular upholstery. It is found, for example, in car head-rests and in the protective foam used for packing items of electrical and electronic equipment.
Starting with pentaBDE and its harmful effect on our environment and on our health, the picture is very clear indeed. A preliminary study carried out in 1998 by the Swedish authorities indicates a high concentration of this substance in breast milk. Two opinions of the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment
from February and June 2000 highlight the damage that could be caused by pentaBDE in relation to discharging this substance into the environment and its being a persistent and bioaccumulative substance. There is therefore a risk to the environment and to human health. There is a unanimity of opinions on this. It was therefore totally logical for the Commission to propose in January of this year a total ban on the marketing and use of pentaBDE. And I would say that it was also logical for our Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy to vote to confirm this ban.
A second substance, octabromodiphenyl ether, is also directly affected by the directive in view of the percentage of pentaBDE residues that it contains when it is sold. OctaBDE is used mainly here as a flame retardant in furniture made of plastic and in office equipment. In this case, the Commission preferred to accept the final conclusions of the risk assessment study still being carried out for this substance. It therefore restricted itself to limiting the percentage of pentaBDE residues authorised in octaBDE to 5%. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy does not share this view. In fact it seems to us to be totally contradictory to ban pentaBDE while permitting the presence of what we regard as significant quantities of pentaBDE in other chemical products, in other substances. Furthermore, I would say that the initial results of the current risk assessment, of which I am aware, are negative and tend to prove the harmful effect of this product not only on the environment but also on public health. These two areas have been assessed by British and French experts respectively, and I have consulted those experts in detail. In view of these different factors, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has tabled an amendment which would extend the marketing ban to octabromodiphenyl ether also, thus strictly applying the precautionary principle. I think I do not need to remind you that the precautionary principle does not mean waiting until there is absolute proof, which in this case would mean waiting for the final result of the risk assessment, when there is sufficiently serious and tangible evidence to demonstrate that a substance could have harmful effects on public health and on the environment. That is exactly the case with octaBDE.
Third and last, and things always seem to go in threes, there is decabromodiphenyl ether, another flame retardant in the same family, which in practice accounts for 80% of this family of brominated substances and has a great many applications, not just in electrical and electronic equipment but also and above all in insulating and building products and in textiles. DecaBDE is the only one of these three substances not to be mentioned at all in the Commission document. Yet I regard it as being difficult, nay, impossible, and I will come back to this point in a few moments, to exclude decaBDE, which is why in Amendment No 4 in my report I call for a method for the evaluation of risks by family of chemical products, and no longer on an individual substance by substance basis. In order to ensure coherence, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has extended the scope of this directive to cover all the polybromodiphenyl ethers. This is totally in line with this House’s recent vote on the electrical and electronic equipment directive. While waiting for precise information to emerge from the risk assessment in relation to decaBDE which is also currently in progress, Amendment No 16, which I have tabled in conjunction with the PPE Group and the Socialist Group, essentially proposes a ban on decaBDE with effect from 1 January 2006, unless the risk assessment in some way exonerates this substance and concludes that decaBDE does not pose any problems. So this is a sort of reversibility clause.
While I am on the subject of amendments, I would like to mention that I oppose Amendment No 9, which aims to change the title of the proposal so as to extend the immediate ban to the marketing of decaBDE. I do not really have any fundamental philosophical objection to Amendments Nos 12, 13 and 14, but I prefer the Commission’s original text. With regard to the other amendment tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, I believe that my report already takes account of the criticisms contained in Amendment No 11 regarding the extremely cumbersome nature of the risk assessment and control procedures for existing substances. I mentioned that just now.
To conclude, the Council Working Party on Dangerous Substances, which will be meeting in a week’s time, will determine the broad guidelines to be adopted by the Internal Market Council on 27 September. I hope that they will make it possible to narrow the gap between the positions of Parliament and the Commission. I also hope, indeed I think, that it will be quite possible at second reading to finalise the adoption of this proposal for a directive amending the dangerous substances directive for the 24th time."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples